3 ms·
I ~think "influence" is packing more punch than you give it credit. B is interacting with A. How can E maliciously enter into this conversation other than as a
by eternalban 4y ago
I ~think "influence" is packing more punch than you give it credit. B is interacting with A. How can E maliciously enter into this conversation other than as a DoS attacker (as E's interaction with A either replaces or interferes with B-A interaction)? In fact, there may be a path for auto-discovery of MITM attack precisely because of this perturbation by E.
- cs702 4y agoIf E gets in the middle, it can pretend to be B with A, and pretend to be A with B, to converge on a different security key with each one. Doing so would allow E to stay in the middle of the conversation without either side noticing.
- eternalban 4y agoI think that would require E being in the middle in all phases of interaction between A and B, from connection initiation. That seems sufficient to set up two distinct synchronization regimes (A|B') and (A'|B) with E playing the fake roles. (It's a fascinating topic this auto-synchronizing chaotic system & I really need to read up on it: https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4917383 https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4917383)
- cs702 4y ago> I think that would require E being in the middle in all phases of interaction between A and B, from connection initiation. Yes, that's right :-) Keep in mind, though, that in practice it may be possible to force re-initiation -- e.g., by feigning timeout, by feigning loss/corruption on the received data, etc.